Posted on 10/24/2001 7:44:21 PM PDT by LibraTango
I hate to raise the question for fear of being on the slippery side of ignorance, but I feel compelled: In discussing the composition (assumed) of the groups who would contribute,mold and influence the post-Taliban governance of Afghanistan, SecState Colin Powell intimated that members of the Northern Alliance would likely have a minimal or even non-existent role in the shaping of said power structure because, to paraphrase, THEY REPRESENT ONLY 15% OF THE POPULATION. THAT AS AN ETHNIC GROUP THEIR NUMBERS WERE TOO SMALL TO REALISTICALLY INCLUDE THEM IN ANY POST-WAR COALITION GOVERNMENT. I am pretty sure I heard the context correctly if not the exact verbiage, but it made me wonder: Isn't that the same rationale that was applied to blacks prior to 1964? If I am wearing a tin-foil hat please tell me.
Might help to explain the intent of this comparative reference if you want an answer.
The NA made deals with communists and assorted other miscreants to take over Kabul before the time was right. Then they had to continue making deals, with various fundamentalists, and even the Taliban before they got kicked out by the Taliban in 1996.
Because there was no strong government due to the "NA" constantly double-crossing people, the entire country collapsed into anarchy, and that created the conditions a few years later where people supported the Taliban who said they would restore "law and order."
The NA has always been more media-conscious than an effective force. During the war with the Soviets Massoud signed seven separate truces with the Soviets. The talk about his being a great field commander was largely journalistic hype.
The NA will not be able to control the country by itself, and if they come in hiding behind American bombing then the minute they take over there will be war in the streets where US bombs won't be able to help them. And then the US will either have to send troops in to rescue its puppets or leave them to the fate of the Montagnards and Hmong of the Viet Nam era.
Powell also has now said that the Taliban are not to be included either. So just who IS going to participate in this new Afghan government?
Adding up the three components of the NA we get 25+19+6=50%. 38% are Pashtun/Taliban; where the remaining 12% stand is less clear (Turkmen are likely to be in the NA column, however).
We will work with the N.A. on a limited basis--it's a lot better to have at least one organized resistance movement in a country that you are trying to destabilize. But we will probably want the ex-king of Afghanistan to return and call for a nationwide council of Islamic clerics to determine the eventual post-Taliban government of the country.
For all of these reasons, the U.S. wants to use the N.A. but to hold it back from gaining too much power or too much territory. That's also why it's very important that our diplomatic/CIA/Special-Ops forces are on the ground in the South trying to convert a number of Southern tribal leaders to join the post-Taliban coalition.
I'm there......................
another thread this last March where several of us discussed the Pakistan/Taliban/alleged CIA/Central Asian background of Afghanistan.
What is needed is some sort of federal system with significant local autonomy and a tolerant, multi-ethnic, unified and unifying central authority.
A country like Afghanistan is almost emblematic of the kind of nation that does well under some form of constitutional monarchy.
The bombing started way too fast to put a coalition like this together. There is continuing "collateral damage," just as there has been in Iraq and Kosovo. People aren't going to call up CNN every time someone gets hit by a "mistake."
The more we bomb, the more hostility there will be to the US by the bombees. And since Americans will not be too visible on the ground, the people will take out their hostilities on whomever they perceive as the American's allies.
Actually, things might be even more interesting: it seems that US, Russia and Iran actually support different players within the N.A.; this might set the stage for a big post-Taliban game.
Russia's objective has been to keep the region destabilized so its Central Asian protectorates won't have transit routes to the Indian Ocean and won't join up with other Muslims, Iran's has been to support the Tajiks who speak a form of Persian, and support its fellow Shiite minority, India's has been to give Pakistan some grief over Kashmir, and America's was to consider the area as Russia's turf even though most of the people hate that country for killing 2 million people.
Until now, no one has really wanted the country to be stable. This created the environment where Bin Ladin could come in with some fighters, and throw some money around and pretty much run things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.